Re: Review and next steps on PROV-CONSTRAINTS

James,

My feedback from reading the latest draft is at:

http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/Dm-constraints_review_2012_May_17_by_Lebo

Regards,
Tim

On May 10, 2012, at 12:26 PM, James Cheney wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> On today's call we discussed reviewing PROV-CONSTRAINTS (which to save my sanity I'll tend to write PROV-C).  It was revised extensively before its FPWD release in response to reviews, but has not yet been reviewed in its current form.  I would like to get a feeling for whether the new form of the document and rationale for its existence are satisfactory before further work on it.  
> 
> Tim Lebo and Graham Klyne have agreed to review it by next week, and I will be trying to clear the issues that I believe have been resolved.
> 
> I would also like to invite anyone else interested in semantics or reasoning over provenance to review PROV-C.  
> 
> Especially, if there are PROV-O or OWL experts who are interested in reviewing and potentially contributing, I'd greatly appreciate it - I am not an expert on this side and guidance as to what constraints are expressible in OWL or other W3C-standard reasoning formalisms should inform the constraints.  I guess techniques that map easily onto existing tools are more likely to be adopted than something ad hoc that we make up.
> 
> Some review questions are below.
> 
> --James
> 
> Q1.  [to Tim and Graham specifically] Does the FPWD of PROV-C address your blocking issues?
> 
> Q2.  Is the rationale for the existence of PROV-C (a) clear, and (b) something that seems worth doing?  If not, how to improve?
> 
> Q3.  Is the structure of PROV-C clear and appropriate?  If not, how to improve?
> 
> Q4.  Are the instructions regarding compliance clear and appropriate (modulo several clearly-marked TODOs)?  If not, how to improve?
> -- 
> The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in
> Scotland, with registration number SC005336.
> 
> 
>

Received on Thursday, 17 May 2012 15:04:39 UTC